BoB's gone, here's why

[blutto]

Re:

So your celebration is of women as an object to be physically appreciated. It's no surprise if people see it as objectification even if they aren't offended by it.

You seem to act like you feel your rights are being trampled by the removal of the thread, but it's not even like the pictures posted were the problem. It was the ongoing theme of the thread that the 'suits' as you deride them saw as the problem. One of the big points that was used in the talk of the sexism debate in British cycling and Victoria Pendleton having done those raunchy photoshoots a few years ago was that she had chosen how to manage her image and it was her choice to pose that way. Which is of course true.

However, as forum users for CN we are more or less at their behest to follow their rules since they justifiably want to have a say in what people can and can't say on their site. They have to manage their own image too. CN's choices until recently in how to manage their image tolerated the BoB thread, and the company have now made a decision that they want to manage their image another way, which is incompatible with the BoB thread. C'est la vie. Maybe they failed to recognize a reduction in traffic may make the site less attractive to advertisers and adversely affect hit count and forum membership, maybe they thought they can compensate that with an increase in traffic from people who didn't appreciate the previous stance, maybe they thought that they could make the site more attractive to advertisers across a broader spectrum of companies as a benefit from taking what is perceived as a more inclusive position. Unfortunately we weren't privy to those discussions so at the moment your suspicions can remain just that. I do know that the sudden appearance at the same time of an account that knows all about the pasts of members and the forum and starts suggesting everybody up sticks to velorooms (for about the 1000th time) is an interesting coincidence, of course.

....could you elaborate on the bolded please....the bit "starts suggesting everybody up sticks to velorooms " I'm finding hard to understand....

Cheers

 

[Netserk]

Why is enjoying a quality of a group of humans objectifying them? Who are you to say that just because I like to watch images of beautiful people, I no longer see them as subjects, but objects?

 

[aphronesis]

Re:

Why is enjoying a quality of a group of humans objectifying them? Who are you to say that just because I like to watch images of beautiful people, I no longer see them as subjects, but objects?

No doubt, but you know it might not play that way at all levels--for all people.

@blutto, foxxy was encouraging the move to velorooms where the talk is free and clouds are pink.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

Why is enjoying a quality of a group of humans objectifying them? Who are you to say that just because I like to watch images of beautiful people, I no longer see them as subjects, but objects?

No doubt, but you know it might not play that way at all levels--for all people.

@blutto, foxxy was encouraging the move to velorooms where the talk is free and clouds are pink.

...well, gosh, its true and much much more...its really a slice of heaven it is....and it has an incredibly well stocked juke box packed full of the finest tune-age....and how pink are those clouds? pinker than one could possibly imagine...

...and best thing is its by the people for the people, a socialist utopia...whereas here the content is freely produced by the sweltering masses to be used by the corporate overlords to make billions... ...so sad, our art used to attract filthy lucre...

Cheers

 

[aphronesis]

Never forget it. Or I guess go sweat it out in a Bahraini jail.

All relative. Hopefully the neoliberal apologists will be fresh after the work holiday. Women get the day off too.

 

[kwikki]

The ignorance of some posters here takes my breath away.

It's as if they've never thought about anything but from their own position.

 

[blutto]

Re:

The ignorance of some posters here takes my breath away.

It's as if they've never thought about anything but from their own position.

...yup....

Cheers

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re:

So your celebration is of women as an object to be physically appreciated. It's no surprise if people see it as objectification even if they aren't offended by it.

You seem to act like you feel your rights are being trampled by the removal of the thread, but it's not even like the pictures posted were the problem. It was the ongoing theme of the thread that the 'suits' as you deride them saw as the problem. One of the big points that was used in the talk of the sexism debate in British cycling and Victoria Pendleton having done those raunchy photoshoots a few years ago was that she had chosen how to manage her image and it was her choice to pose that way. Which is of course true.

However, as forum users for CN we are more or less at their behest to follow their rules since they justifiably want to have a say in what people can and can't say on their site. They have to manage their own image too. CN's choices until recently in how to manage their image tolerated the BoB thread, and the company have now made a decision that they want to manage their image another way, which is incompatible with the BoB thread. C'est la vie. Maybe they failed to recognize a reduction in traffic may make the site less attractive to advertisers and adversely affect hit count and forum membership, maybe they thought they can compensate that with an increase in traffic from people who didn't appreciate the previous stance, maybe they thought that they could make the site more attractive to advertisers across a broader spectrum of companies as a benefit from taking what is perceived as a more inclusive position. Unfortunately we weren't privy to those discussions so at the moment your suspicions can remain just that. I do know that the sudden appearance at the same time of an account that knows all about the pasts of members and the forum and starts suggesting everybody up sticks to velorooms (for about the 1000th time) is an interesting coincidence, of course.

'Object' is your word - not mine - and I find it interesting that you are projecting your view on to me. Let's just say it gives you away.

My rights aren't being trampled on and I've never said or intimated anything of the such. I don't own this place. But I have no problem putting my opinion out there and you are perfectly free to ignore it.

When the suits make dumb decisions I'll call them out. Too bad. My opinion.

All the rest is fine. No one has ever forced me to post here or stay... Plenty of choices. C'est la vie just about covers it.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re:

Why is enjoying a quality of a group of humans objectifying them? Who are you to say that just because I like to watch images of beautiful people, I no longer see them as subjects, but objects?

Exactly. If an individual sees a pretty girl as an object then everyone else must also.

Bizarre? Yep. Telling? Absolutely.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Re: Re:

Why is enjoying a quality of a group of humans objectifying them? Who are you to say that just because I like to watch images of beautiful people, I no longer see them as subjects, but objects?

No doubt, but you know it might not play that way at all levels--for all people.

@blutto, foxxy was encouraging the move to velorooms where the talk is free and clouds are pink.

Foxxy has been permabanned multiple times, who in their right mind give a f**k what he thinks?

 

[dusty red roads]

I'm a female. I opened that thread once expecting to see women racers (who might also be deemed attractive) and on the page I opened all I saw was page 3 type models in borderline soft porn poses and often not a lot of clothes.... Glad to see the thread is gone. No offense to you guys who feel it celebrates women, eveyone has their own opinion. I have nothing against seeing attractive women or men, but I personally found it sexist and I agree with the word objectification, while others don't, which is fine. Perhaps there's a difference with seeing an attractive woman to pages and pages of women draped over bikes in poses that are basically saying CFM. I'm not trying to stop you viewing what's attractive to you but agree that they don't need to be here and you can view them elsewhere.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Re:

The ignorance of some posters here takes my breath away.

It's as if they've never thought about anything but from their own position.

The impudent presumption of some posters, particularly ones who have spent all of one month on CN, and who therefore presumably have only a minimal knowledge of the history and content of BoB, takes my breath away.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

The ignorance of some posters here takes my breath away.

It's as if they've never thought about anything but from their own position.

The impudent presumption of some posters, particularly ones who have spent all of one month on CN, and who therefore presumably have only a minimal knowledge of the history and content of BoB, takes my breath away.

It really doesn't take very long to spot ignorance. Sexist crap that denigrated women.

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

Why is enjoying a quality of a group of humans objectifying them? Who are you to say that just because I like to watch images of beautiful people, I no longer see them as subjects, but objects?

No doubt, but you know it might not play that way at all levels--for all people.

@blutto, foxxy was encouraging the move to velorooms where the talk is free and clouds are pink.

Foxxy has been permabanned multiple times, who in their right mind give a f**k what he thinks?

What? Are you exemplifying the lessons of the US punitive system? The fact that he's been "permabanned" means there's a lack of check and, say, your wit and subtlety. It doesn't invalidate all his points.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

The ignorance of some posters here takes my breath away.

It's as if they've never thought about anything but from their own position.

The impudent presumption of some posters, particularly ones who have spent all of one month on CN, and who therefore presumably have only a minimal knowledge of the history and content of BoB, takes my breath away.

It really doesn't take very long to spot ignorance. Sexist crap that denigrated women.

...nope...

Cheers

 

[thehog]

Re:

The ignorance of some posters here takes my breath away.

It's as if they've never thought about anything but from their own position.

I bet.

kwikki is banned for one month for trolling, insinuating that another member is a 'rapist'

 

[kwikki]

Re:

Why is enjoying a quality of a group of humans objectifying them? Who are you to say that just because I like to watch images of beautiful people, I no longer see them as subjects, but objects?

Try having a young daughter, and then watch her grow up surrounded by implicit messages that all she is good for is looking pretty, with the obvious corollary that if she isn't pretty she's less valuable.

If you think those messages aren't there you havent got your eyes open. In the UK we've had a whole series of cases of women on TV being sidelined as they get older.....not because they were any less good at doing their job, but because there weren't as pretty.

Now ask yourself if this happens to men...

Women get a crap deal the whole world over to a greater or lesser degree.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

Why is enjoying a quality of a group of humans objectifying them? Who are you to say that just because I like to watch images of beautiful people, I no longer see them as subjects, but objects?

Try having a young daughter, and then watch her grow up surrounded by implicit messages that all she is good for is looking pretty, with the obvious corollary that if she isn't pretty she's less valuable.

If you think those messages aren't there you havent got your eyes open. In the UK we've had a whole series of cases of women on TV being sidelined as they get older.....not because they were any less good at doing their job, but because there weren't as pretty.

Now ask yourself if this happens to men...

Women get a crap deal the whole world over to a greater or lesser degree.

Like it or not, but beauty is a valuable quality, so obviously everything else being equal, you'd be less valuable if you lack beauty. Same goes for intelligence. While it's a bigger factor for women than men, it does count for both. That is just the way it is (that it counts, not necessarily that it's in different degrees based on your sex).

 

[kwikki]

It's good that you are so open-minded.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

Well that makes everything OK then doesn't it.

Yeah, imagine... entire industries-the world over-often times made up of women appealing to, um, women.... on this level no less.

Fashion, make-up.... I mean if there ever were a more absolute objectification of women in the history of the world it certainly would be make-up. And yet the vast majority of women, certainly in the western world, wear, you know, make-up.

But should one post or appreciate a pretty girl on a bicycle and watch out.

 

[blutto]

Re:

It's good that you are so open-minded.

...yeah its a considerable part of my bottomless pit of charm...

Cheers

 

[hrotha]

People implying that women or women's magazines can't be sexist ITT.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

Never forget it. Or I guess go sweat it out in a Bahraini jail.

All relative. Hopefully the neoliberal apologists will be fresh after the work holiday. Women get the day off too.

The two of you are ignorant according to someone who posted after your post.

I guess that makes Scott and a few others ignorant - I fall in to the ignorant bucket because I agreed to agree.

Neolibleral's get the day off for Memorial day? I thought they were busy trying to do away with remembering anything veteran related?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Why is enjoying a quality of a group of humans objectifying them? Who are you to say that just because I like to watch images of beautiful people, I no longer see them as subjects, but objects?

Try having a young daughter, and then watch her grow up surrounded by implicit messages that all she is good for is looking pretty, with the obvious corollary that if she isn't pretty she's less valuable.

If you think those messages aren't there you havent got your eyes open. In the UK we've had a whole series of cases of women on TV being sidelined as they get older.....not because they were any less good at doing their job, but because there weren't as pretty.

Now ask yourself if this happens to men...

Women get a crap deal the whole world over to a greater or lesser degree.

Men get it when they are FAT and NASTY. Hard for them to get a job.

Also the other day I saw a kid come in for a intern interview and he had on some hot climate casual cloths on (slacks with a short sleeve button up oxford) anyhow he had this thing in his ear that resembled something out of a National Geographic episode (folks said the children call them hoops) looked like a onyx ring for a giant except it was in his ear lobe. Along with that he had what looked like some type of script message tattoo along his neck. To cap it all off he had some pretty pictures on his arm. I'm going to bet barista boy don't make it into the office as an intern. Just a guess. If he does I will be the first one to tell him to wear a turtle neck long sleeve shirt and duct tape over his ear every day he comes to the office.

So Men get sidelined everyday for some poor appearance issues.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

People implying that women or women's magazines can't be sexist ITT.

I'm going to not look when I see these sexist magazines on the stand. Maybe cosmo will decide to only print photos of the clouds on the covers.